I know I'm not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard: HOA + CC&R = RHR "It's not rocket science" RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035 So, they have found another venue for their advertising. Interestingly, as one of the "Heartburns" of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven't investigated it, but it doesn't appear any money is involved. '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT
GM All, I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add-
HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035
I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part. Food for thought and my $0.02 worth... 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I know I’m not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard:
HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035
So, they have found another venue for their advertising.
Interestingly, as one of the “Heartburns” of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven’t investigated it, but it doesn’t appear any money is involved.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
David, we rejected that ad copy from RHR for the precise reason you mention. Our opponent, CAI does read our materials. I don't know whether they would see this but shame on CQ for running that ad and shame on RHR for their willingness to sacrifice the best interests of ham radio in their quest for a few bucks. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2015, at 8:44 AM, David Norris <k5uz@suddenlink.net> wrote:
GM All,
I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add-
HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035
I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part.
Food for thought and my $0.02 worth...
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
I know I’m not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard:
HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035
So, they have found another venue for their advertising.
Interestingly, as one of the “Heartburns” of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven’t investigated it, but it doesn’t appear any money is involved.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
A member brought this ad to my attention, and Dan Henderson responded “We have been aware of RHR's ad and the DC team has things in their pockets to deal with it if it comes up.” Although the wording could be cleaned up a bit, I offered the following to the member: “I think it is easy to say that during a true emergency, all infrastructure systems will be down. There will be no landline phones, no cell service or internet. The RHR concept would fail under those circumstances. In other words, while everything is working, RHR is working. When everything goes down…..EVERYTHING goes down. Being able to set up antennas at our home makes us a communications point that needs no infrastructure, and therefore can be up and running when nothing else is! AND, to the point that “well, we will let them put up antennas ONLY during an emergency” is fallacious, as you need to constantly train on your station to become proficient so when an emergency happens, you know both you and your station will be ready to operate. A corollary to that mode of thinking is not only that an orchestra would not be able to practice before a concert; but that they would be restricted to even not be able to learn to play their instruments, and then at a moment’s notice, be expected to play a concert. The HR-1301 fight is a good fight.” ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ From: Chris Imlay [mailto:w3kd.arrl@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:52 AM To: David Norris Cc: James F. Boehner MD; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:24313] Re: RHR ad in CQ David, we rejected that ad copy from RHR for the precise reason you mention. Our opponent, CAI does read our materials. I don't know whether they would see this but shame on CQ for running that ad and shame on RHR for their willingness to sacrifice the best interests of ham radio in their quest for a few bucks. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2015, at 8:44 AM, David Norris <k5uz@suddenlink.net> wrote: GM All, I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add- HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035 I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part. Food for thought and my $0.02 worth... 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote: I know I’m not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard: HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035 So, they have found another venue for their advertising. Interestingly, as one of the “Heartburns” of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven’t investigated it, but it doesn’t appear any money is involved. ’73 de JIM N2ZZ Director – Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™ _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
Jim, We still do not need to give the opposition any legislative ammo to use against us whatsoever. This is still IMHO reckless on CQ's and RHR's part. It makes me question their motives now more than ever- they are certainly not concerned about the overall good of our members in particular nor amateur radio in general. Point in case: I remember that QST rejected a similar RHR ad earlier for the very reasons I stated this AM. They knew our concerns yet they paid for the CQ ad; hence it shows me an overall pattern of bad behavior. I will make no bones about it, I DO NOT like RHR. I do not like their approach and heavy handed marketing tactics. They have impressed me as greedy and that's the end of the story. It stinks! 73 -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:04 AM To: 'Chris Imlay'; 'David Norris' Cc: 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:24316] Re: RHR ad in CQ A member brought this ad to my attention, and Dan Henderson responded "We have been aware of RHR's ad and the DC team has things in their pockets to deal with it if it comes up." Although the wording could be cleaned up a bit, I offered the following to the member: "I think it is easy to say that during a true emergency, all infrastructure systems will be down. There will be no landline phones, no cell service or internet. The RHR concept would fail under those circumstances. In other words, while everything is working, RHR is working. When everything goes down...EVERYTHING goes down. Being able to set up antennas at our home makes us a communications point that needs no infrastructure, and therefore can be up and running when nothing else is! AND, to the point that "well, we will let them put up antennas ONLY during an emergency" is fallacious, as you need to constantly train on your station to become proficient so when an emergency happens, you know both you and your station will be ready to operate. A corollary to that mode of thinking is not only that an orchestra would not be able to practice before a concert; but that they would be restricted to even not be able to learn to play their instruments, and then at a moment's notice, be expected to play a concert. The HR-1301 fight is a good fight." '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT From: Chris Imlay [mailto:w3kd.arrl@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:52 AM To: David Norris Cc: James F. Boehner MD; arrl-odv Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:24313] Re: RHR ad in CQ David, we rejected that ad copy from RHR for the precise reason you mention. Our opponent, CAI does read our materials. I don't know whether they would see this but shame on CQ for running that ad and shame on RHR for their willingness to sacrifice the best interests of ham radio in their quest for a few bucks. 73, Chris W3KD Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2015, at 8:44 AM, David Norris <k5uz@suddenlink.net <mailto:k5uz@suddenlink.net> > wrote: GM All, I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add- HOA + CC&R = RHR "It's not rocket science" RemoteHamRadio.com <http://RemoteHamRadio.com> 888-675-8035 I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part. Food for thought and my $0.02 worth... 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division Sent from my iPhone On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> > wrote: I know I'm not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard: HOA + CC&R = RHR "It's not rocket science" RemoteHamRadio.com <http://RemoteHamRadio.com> 888-675-8035 So, they have found another venue for their advertising. Interestingly, as one of the "Heartburns" of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven't investigated it, but it doesn't appear any money is involved. '73 de JIM N2ZZ Director - Roanoke Division Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections ARRL - The National Association for Amateur RadioT _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
The types of on-the-air activity supported by RHR, namely contesting and DX’ing, are not at the core of our justification for relief from private deed restrictions. Hams are not, as far as I know, using RHR to check into local or regional nets or to take part in public-service communications, all of which can be hampered by the lack of an effective antenna. We can also make a reasonable case that the cost to use commercial remote-station services is beyond what many Hams can afford. I would not get too worked up about the ad. We can, without much difficulty, counter any suggestion that the existence of remote stations (which, btw, have been around in other forms for decades) obviates the need for the relief we seek in HR-1301. 73, Marty N6VI
Marty, A second point is we SHOULD NOT have to waste time and effort refuting any potential arguments that could be brought forth from this ad. Again, this is reckless and I look forward to seeing the June CQ ad - probably by September when it lands in my mailbox. 73 David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division ARRL The National Association for Amateur RadioTM -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Marty Woll Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 8:16 AM To: 'Chris Imlay'; 'David Norris' Cc: 'arrl-odv' Subject: [arrl-odv:24317] Re: RHR ad in CQ The types of on-the-air activity supported by RHR, namely contesting and DX’ing, are not at the core of our justification for relief from private deed restrictions. Hams are not, as far as I know, using RHR to check into local or regional nets or to take part in public-service communications, all of which can be hampered by the lack of an effective antenna. We can also make a reasonable case that the cost to use commercial remote-station services is beyond what many Hams can afford. I would not get too worked up about the ad. We can, without much difficulty, counter any suggestion that the existence of remote stations (which, btw, have been around in other forms for decades) obviates the need for the relief we seek in HR-1301. 73, Marty N6VI
David I and the West Gulf have been dealing with the multiple HOA lobbying groups since 2009. While I have a strong, well-founded, opinion of their moral shortcomings, I have never found them — or at least their lead lobbyists — to be afflicted with HUB or to be politically naive. They will or have already seen the ad — and previous ads in QST wherein the ARRL permitted RHR to advertise behind ARRL trademarks. The HOAs and our real adversaries — the real estate sales community, the builders and the developers — spend millions per year in lobbying, at both the State and Federal level. They will use this tool and the logical argument behind it. One of my objections to our previous support — intended, unintended or politically clueless — of RHR was that it offers one of the best arguments against permitting Hams /t//o destroy the economic value of millions of American homes, to litter the residential landscape with ugly, dangerous, offensive metal monstrosities and to violate hundreds of years of contract law./ /Such crude, 100 years old technology is no longer necessary — Hams themselves, using technology, have obviated the need for such crudities — they have developed methodologies that permit every Amateur to have access to the airwaves — they have created remote ham radio. Why even their national organization has and continues to support the development and expansion of remote ham radio operation — they lend their prestige//and //trademarks to the providers and even adapt their rules of operation to permit and promote remote operation. / With respect to Marty — remote operation will become cheaper as it gains more customers/adherents — thus that "reasonable" case and defense will be whittled away over time. The argument also assumes a level of understanding of the operation of AR that simply does not exist in any legislature. When you start explaining the difference between DX, local repeaters, simplex, et al — the "glazed eye" quotient increases logarithmically/. /And the HOAs, the real estate community, the builders and the developers will not accept any differentiation in operational needs — they will simply tie the issue to: /"Dude, it is a dying hobby of OFWGs who just want to talk & technology (they developed) permits them to do that. We used to have to have ugly telephone poles to communicate, now we have cell phones; technology improves all communications and the OFWGs just need to adapt to technology (theirs). Besides, with modern infrastructure, mobile & satellite communications and the universal availability of the internet how often is it likely we will really have to rely on an ancient, past century communications system practiced by a minority of citizens (OFWGs by the way)? / Accepting Chris Imlay's statement that the ARRL refused to run a RHR ad with the CQ language — correct call and good job, by the way — it underscores past poor business and strategic decisions — to wit, not getting control of CQ when it was possible. CQ intends to survive — it is a business after all — and if the Devil wants to run an ad and the Devil's check clears, the Devil is going to be permitted to run an ad. In fact, if I were the Devil I would think about buying or financially supporting CQ to maintain a pipeline to the customer base. And there is always the internet & its advertising ... RHR is also a for-profit business; it intends to survive and expand. So it the stuffy senior citizens @ 225 Main reject their ads, they are going to go elsewhere. RHR is not a friend of AR or the ARRL. And it is clear from its past actions that it doesn't give a tinker's damn what the ARRL thinks or what AR needs to expand and survive. And if the "DC Team" has "/thin//g//s in their pockets to deal with it/" I would love to have a peek into the "Team's" pocket. Dr. Jim, yes the fight to remove outdated, financially motivated, private property right limiting private land use restrictions is "a good fight" — in fact, I believe it is _THE_ good fight — but if we are to win that fight, AR has to develop and fund a strategic theater of operations battle strategy it is willing to maintain for the long term. And that plan has to realistically address the elephant in the room — RHR, remote operation and RHR's very damaging and hostile marketing. 73 *-----------------------------------------------------* ** John Robert Stratton N5AUS Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232 *-----------------------------------------------------* On 6/6/15 7:44 AM, David Norris wrote:
GM All,
I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add-
*HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com <http://RemoteHamRadio.com> 888-675-8035 *
I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part.
Food for thought and my $0.02 worth...
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> wrote:
I know I’m not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard:
*HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com <http://RemoteHamRadio.com> 888-675-8035*
So, they have found another venue for their advertising.
Interestingly, as one of the “Heartburns” of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven’t investigated it, but it doesn’t appear any money is involved.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
Director – Roanoke Division
/Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections/
*ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
I must agree with John. And moreover, these same arguments are not limited to the HOA and CC&R issues. They are now applied to PRB-1 "need" cases as well. Remote operations are also typically conflated by the public and legal tribunals with repeater systems and amateur satellites as eliminating the need for amateur towers and antennas, even for VHF, UHF and microwave operations. Last year, after 5 nights of hearings and almost 100 trial exhibits, 80 were mine in favor, a zoning appeals board staffed by 5 lawyers and the board's legal counsel denied a request for a 180 foot Rohn tower on 3 acres of WN3A's heavily wooded, semi-rural residence, stating just this. They awarded a truly useless height (for the subject location, subject property and demonstrated need and use) of 65 feet because PA law has a 65 foot minimum, albeit with too many exceptions to the exception. They really wanted it limited to 35 feet. The antennas therefore are maybe 45 feet or less above the highest point on the property and well under heavy foliage. They focused in the 25 page opinion on *remote operations, repeater stations and relaying signals including satellites* to justify their findings. One of two separate townships opposing argued WN3A could have a remote "club" , as they called it in their brief, and operate from there. Our Federal district court dismissed that amateur's well pleaded complaint resulting from the zoning board denial just a few weeks ago on preliminary motion. This puts us out of court before any evidence is presented. The court's lengthy written opinion alludes to John's very argument, essentially adapting the findings of the zoning board. Ham's can use repeaters and newer technologies to operate as a reasonable accommodation - usable antennas not needed regardless of evidence presented. And separately, astonishingly enough, the federal judge also opines that amateur microwave operations are possible from a 17 foot high antenna with heavy foliage, 96 foot trees, all around and higher local terrain . We are going to file an appeal to the third circuit court of appeals in about a week, but this published opinion changes much on the PRB-1 front in my view and that of our nationally renowned PRB-1 expert, K1VR. This new court opinion is presently legal precedent which many fill face as a new huddle. I present it here as this case from the beginning adapts the likely arguments against HR-1301 John presents. During public meetings in a greater Philadelphia suburban/semi-rural area, attended by over a hundred residents in 2014 - I was present - "ham radio is obsolete" was a main theme. One supervisor, the emergency manager for the town, testified ham radio has no emergency communications value to them these days and filed a written statement in the case to that effect. Others argued hams do not need significant antennas these days with new technologies, just as stated by John. Other hams calling me for advice in recent times are hearing the same arguments when they are summarily denied permits for even 55 or 65 foot towers. I see the definite erosion of PRB-1 and the defining cases since after about 2001. These arguments will show up against us here for sure as John suggested. I would love to see success on HR-1301, but we will indeed see these arguments and need to be ready, in advance with cogent responses. I'd love to see those "pocket" goodies as well. Might even help us in basic PRB-1 cases. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 On 6/6/2015 10:07 AM, JRS wrote:
David
I and the West Gulf have been dealing with the multiple HOA lobbying groups since 2009. While I have a strong, well-founded, opinion of their moral shortcomings, I have never found them — or at least their lead lobbyists — to be afflicted with HUB or to be politically naive. They will or have already seen the ad — and previous ads in QST wherein the ARRL permitted RHR to advertise behind ARRL trademarks. The HOAs and our real adversaries — the real estate sales community, the builders and the developers — spend millions per year in lobbying, at both the State and Federal level. They will use this tool and the logical argument behind it.
One of my objections to our previous support — intended, unintended or politically clueless — of RHR was that it offers one of the best arguments against permitting Hams /t//o destroy the economic value of millions of American homes, to litter the residential landscape with ugly, dangerous, offensive metal monstrosities and to violate hundreds of years of contract law./
/Such crude, 100 years old technology is no longer necessary — Hams themselves, using technology, have obviated the need for such crudities — they have developed methodologies that permit every Amateur to have access to the airwaves — they have created remote ham radio. Why even their national organization has and continues to support the development and expansion of remote ham radio operation — they lend their prestige//and //trademarks to the providers and even adapt their rules of operation to permit and promote remote operation.
/ With respect to Marty — remote operation will become cheaper as it gains more customers/adherents — thus that "reasonable" case and defense will be whittled away over time. The argument also assumes a level of understanding of the operation of AR that simply does not exist in any legislature. When you start explaining the difference between DX, local repeaters, simplex, et al — the "glazed eye" quotient increases logarithmically/. /And the HOAs, the real estate community, the builders and the developers will not accept any differentiation in operational needs — they will simply tie the issue to: /"Dude, it is a dying hobby of OFWGs who just want to talk & technology (they developed) permits them to do that. We used to have to have ugly telephone poles to communicate, now we have cell phones; technology improves all communications and the OFWGs just need to adapt to technology (theirs). Besides, with modern infrastructure, mobile & satellite communications and the universal availability of the internet how often is it likely we will really have to rely on an ancient, past century communications system practiced by a minority of citizens (OFWGs by the way)? / Accepting Chris Imlay's statement that the ARRL refused to run a RHR ad with the CQ language — correct call and good job, by the way — it underscores past poor business and strategic decisions — to wit, not getting control of CQ when it was possible. CQ intends to survive — it is a business after all — and if the Devil wants to run an ad and the Devil's check clears, the Devil is going to be permitted to run an ad. In fact, if I were the Devil I would think about buying or financially supporting CQ to maintain a pipeline to the customer base. And there is always the internet & its advertising ...
RHR is also a for-profit business; it intends to survive and expand. So it the stuffy senior citizens @ 225 Main reject their ads, they are going to go elsewhere. RHR is not a friend of AR or the ARRL. And it is clear from its past actions that it doesn't give a tinker's damn what the ARRL thinks or what AR needs to expand and survive.
And if the "DC Team" has "/thin//g//s in their pockets to deal with it/" I would love to have a peek into the "Team's" pocket.
Dr. Jim, yes the fight to remove outdated, financially motivated, private property right limiting private land use restrictions is "a good fight" — in fact, I believe it is _THE_ good fight — but if we are to win that fight, AR has to develop and fund a strategic theater of operations battle strategy it is willing to maintain for the long term. And that plan has to realistically address the elephant in the room — RHR, remote operation and RHR's very damaging and hostile marketing.
73
*-----------------------------------------------------*
**
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Office telephone: 512-445-6262 Cell: 512-426-2028 PO Box 2232 Austin, Texas 78768-2232
*-----------------------------------------------------*
On 6/6/15 7:44 AM, David Norris wrote:
GM All,
I see Dr. Boehner's point with RHR and the "unrestricted" use of ubiquitous Elecraft remotes opens another issue. However that which I find most worrisome is this part of the RHR add-
*HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com <http://RemoteHamRadio.com> 888-675-8035 *
I sure hope the HOA opponents to HR-1301 do not see this! This has the potential to do us great harm with respect to our current legislative efforts and I think it is quite reckless on RHR's part.
Food for thought and my $0.02 worth...
73
David A. Norris, K5UZ Director, Delta Division
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 6, 2015, at 7:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>> wrote:
I know I’m not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard:
*HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com <http://RemoteHamRadio.com> 888-675-8035*
So, they have found another venue for their advertising.
Interestingly, as one of the “Heartburns” of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven’t investigated it, but it doesn’t appear any money is involved.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
Director – Roanoke Division
/Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections/
*ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
And still, no one ever mentions 97.213 (d) : "A photocopy of the station license and a label with the name, address, and telephone number of the station licensee and at least one designated control operator is posted in a conspicuous place at the station location". -- Dale WA8EFK On 6/6/2015 8:10 AM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv wrote:
I know I’m not the first to see this, but on page 9 in the June 2015 issue of CQ, RHR has a full page ad depicting a chalkboard:
*HOA + CC&R = RHR “It’s not rocket science” RemoteHamRadio.com 888-675-8035*
So, they have found another venue for their advertising.
Interestingly, as one of the “Heartburns” of this RHR is charging large sums of money and time per minute of operation, I found this site that has some affiliation with Elecraft: http://www.remotehams.com/ where you can actually share your station. I haven’t investigated it, but it doesn’t appear any money is involved.
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
Director – Roanoke Division
/Serving ARRL members in the Virginia, West Virginia, South Carolina and North Carolina sections/
*ARRL – The National Association for Amateur Radio™*
_______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
participants (7)
-
Bob Famiglio K3RF -
Chris Imlay -
Dale Williams -
David Norris -
James F. Boehner MD -
JRS -
Marty Woll